If energy is all that constitutes the universe, as physicalists claim, then the behaviour of energy defines all that exists and all that happens in the universe. And what is the basic behaviour of energy? To me it seems to be that energy, above all else, causes things to exist. In fact, it seems that this is the one and only purpose of energy. It causes things to exist.
So, can any philosophical conclusions be drawn from this? Perhaps not, but to explain the behaviour of energy, one must resort to one of two possible explanations. Either, this behaviour is entirely coincidental, or it is in fact meant to be so. Both of these explanations might be correct, but it seems unlikely that all energy in the universe should work towards a common goal by pure coincidence.
And anyway, regardless of which answer to that question you prefer, it must at least be agreed that, even if we cannot say that the universe as a whole has a will, it does exhibit will-like behaviour. We see this kind of behaviour in all living things. Both plants and animals work towards some goal, usaually connected to its own survival and the survival of its species. We do not see this behaviour in inanimate objects.
Though i admit this in itself does not prove that the universe is a living thing in the same sense as organic life, and of course it is not, it still seems evident that they share at least one common quality, that separates them from inanimate objects. Is this an argument for seeing the universe as more than an inanimate object? Is there indeed such a thing as a cosmic will?
Thursday, 6 October 2011
Sunday, 25 September 2011
The death of Schopenhauer
There is only one classification that I have been able to find that seems irrefutable, impossible to dismiss. In the case of most polarized dichotomies, if you change your viewpoint on them, the opposition between the extremeties seem to dissolve. The only one I have been unable to find such a resolution to, is the division between existence and non-existence.
This is what leads me to believe that this might be the most basic fact of the universe. It seems an intuitive and correct assumption to state that existence is good, or positive, and non-existence is bad, or negative. If both these assumptions are correct, it follows that everything good is connected to existence. We might even take this one step further and state that the will towards existence is the foundation for anything that might be called good in the world.
And when I say everything, I mean everything. I´m not only talking about good in the moral sense, but also good as in quality, as in skilled, as in beautyful. Everything that is to be good, in any sense of that word, needs to have as it´s ultimate goal, the will to exist.
I need to make one remark before i continue. The will to existence must not be confused with the self preservation instincts of living beings. While this instinct most certainly stems from this will, they are not excactly the same thing, as the instict of a single individual is slightly perverted, by resistance caused by the tendency in the universe to seek non-existence, to target the existence af that one individual. Pure will to existence is a will to preserve the existence of All, of absolutely everything.
I will continue this line of reasoning at a later date.
This is what leads me to believe that this might be the most basic fact of the universe. It seems an intuitive and correct assumption to state that existence is good, or positive, and non-existence is bad, or negative. If both these assumptions are correct, it follows that everything good is connected to existence. We might even take this one step further and state that the will towards existence is the foundation for anything that might be called good in the world.
And when I say everything, I mean everything. I´m not only talking about good in the moral sense, but also good as in quality, as in skilled, as in beautyful. Everything that is to be good, in any sense of that word, needs to have as it´s ultimate goal, the will to exist.
I need to make one remark before i continue. The will to existence must not be confused with the self preservation instincts of living beings. While this instinct most certainly stems from this will, they are not excactly the same thing, as the instict of a single individual is slightly perverted, by resistance caused by the tendency in the universe to seek non-existence, to target the existence af that one individual. Pure will to existence is a will to preserve the existence of All, of absolutely everything.
I will continue this line of reasoning at a later date.
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Break on through
Energy travels from the inner core of existence and outward towards its outer layer, the layer we know as the physical universe. On this path, energy is subjected to resistance, and if resistance is allowed to hinder it, energy becomes corrupted. Corrupted energy turns destructive.
One of the strongest and purest manifestations of energy in our bodies is love. In those moments when you can feel unrestrained love for absolutely everything, energy flows freely through your body, without resistance. But for the most part, love is hampered by many things, and as a result it turns to hatred. Limitation is a form of resistance, so when you limit your love, as you do when you love a country instead of humanity as a whole for instance, you corrupt a part of your love-energy and turn it into negative feelings toward the inhabitants of other countries.
When someone harms the ones you love, your fear of this happening again, the hurt you feel, creates resistance that turns into thoughts of revenge and feelings of hatred. When you see this happen to someone else, your fear that this will also happen to you creates the need to allieviate that fear. This often results in a need to harm someone, anyone, a scapegoat. The act of harming creates the illusion of safety, the illusion that you have taken steps to protect yourself.
Having experienced many negative things in your life leaves residual resistance that makes acting destructively an attractive option. Lack of sleep creates resistance, lack of food creates resistance, spiritual or physical immobility creates resistance, many, many things create resistance in our bodies. It helps to live in a way that limits resistance. Physical and mental exercise, eating healthy food and so on makes it easier to live a life free of resistance, in effect it makes it easier to live a life that is good and constructive both to ourselves and those around us.
However, resistance will allways build up, and often you will not even notice it. Often, you will explain your hatred away as proper behaviour. Often, you will think that you live a good life, doing all the things a proper person should be doing, and so you will not see your own pettyness and the small hatreds you nurture towards certain people or groups of people. No one, except maybe the Buddha, are absolutely free of resistance, allways remember.
What is needed, when things are dark, when you become aware of your own shortcomings, when you feel a pang of guilt at something you have done, when you doubt your own standing in the social environment. What is needed is that you reach in to the deep recesses of yourself, finding the light, the pure energy that emanates from that place, and from that place shoot out a great burst of energy shattering all resistance, filling you with strength, love and will and making it more likely that your actions will be good.
One of the strongest and purest manifestations of energy in our bodies is love. In those moments when you can feel unrestrained love for absolutely everything, energy flows freely through your body, without resistance. But for the most part, love is hampered by many things, and as a result it turns to hatred. Limitation is a form of resistance, so when you limit your love, as you do when you love a country instead of humanity as a whole for instance, you corrupt a part of your love-energy and turn it into negative feelings toward the inhabitants of other countries.
When someone harms the ones you love, your fear of this happening again, the hurt you feel, creates resistance that turns into thoughts of revenge and feelings of hatred. When you see this happen to someone else, your fear that this will also happen to you creates the need to allieviate that fear. This often results in a need to harm someone, anyone, a scapegoat. The act of harming creates the illusion of safety, the illusion that you have taken steps to protect yourself.
Having experienced many negative things in your life leaves residual resistance that makes acting destructively an attractive option. Lack of sleep creates resistance, lack of food creates resistance, spiritual or physical immobility creates resistance, many, many things create resistance in our bodies. It helps to live in a way that limits resistance. Physical and mental exercise, eating healthy food and so on makes it easier to live a life free of resistance, in effect it makes it easier to live a life that is good and constructive both to ourselves and those around us.
However, resistance will allways build up, and often you will not even notice it. Often, you will explain your hatred away as proper behaviour. Often, you will think that you live a good life, doing all the things a proper person should be doing, and so you will not see your own pettyness and the small hatreds you nurture towards certain people or groups of people. No one, except maybe the Buddha, are absolutely free of resistance, allways remember.
What is needed, when things are dark, when you become aware of your own shortcomings, when you feel a pang of guilt at something you have done, when you doubt your own standing in the social environment. What is needed is that you reach in to the deep recesses of yourself, finding the light, the pure energy that emanates from that place, and from that place shoot out a great burst of energy shattering all resistance, filling you with strength, love and will and making it more likely that your actions will be good.
Friday, 12 August 2011
Penalty
As long as our society has a penal system, I think any politician who gives the order to go to war, for whatever reason, should be sentenced to jail. At the very least, he should stand trial. Think about it - if someone kills only one person in self defence, he must face up to his actions in a court of law. Why should a man who orders the death of thousands go free with no questions asked?
A man can give such an order with absolutely no risk to himself, and even if it becomes clear, after the war is over, that his (I use the masculine pronoun for simplicity) reasons for starting it were wrong, he can simply shrug his shoulders and say "I was wrong", and then move on with his life. And probably a quite confortable life at that.
To be honest, I do not think punishing crimes is the best way for a society to fight it, but as long as we have that system, it should be consistent. In my opinion, murder is always morally wrong. I cannot think of a single instance where it could be considered completely right, though in some instances, as in the defence of one´s own or someone else´s life, the use of deadly force is understandable.
I said in the beginning that I think a man should be punished for starting a war even if it is considered to be a fair war for noble reasons. I say this because I think such a decision should not be taken idly. If you truly feel such a thing is absolutely necessary, you should also be prepared to face the consequences. A terrorist who plants a bomb believes his motives justifies his actions, and he knows that if he gets caught, he will be punished. He is prepared to face those consequences. The same should be true for a statesman.
A man can give such an order with absolutely no risk to himself, and even if it becomes clear, after the war is over, that his (I use the masculine pronoun for simplicity) reasons for starting it were wrong, he can simply shrug his shoulders and say "I was wrong", and then move on with his life. And probably a quite confortable life at that.
To be honest, I do not think punishing crimes is the best way for a society to fight it, but as long as we have that system, it should be consistent. In my opinion, murder is always morally wrong. I cannot think of a single instance where it could be considered completely right, though in some instances, as in the defence of one´s own or someone else´s life, the use of deadly force is understandable.
I said in the beginning that I think a man should be punished for starting a war even if it is considered to be a fair war for noble reasons. I say this because I think such a decision should not be taken idly. If you truly feel such a thing is absolutely necessary, you should also be prepared to face the consequences. A terrorist who plants a bomb believes his motives justifies his actions, and he knows that if he gets caught, he will be punished. He is prepared to face those consequences. The same should be true for a statesman.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Definitions
It occurs to me that in these writings I am utilizing two different definitions of God, sometimes clearly separate and sometimes mixed with each other. The first definition is the traditional one as God, the entity that I as a person believe in. I will not remove the use of God in this sense from my posts, even though they often muddle the clarity of the philosophical ideas I set forth. For that, it is a too important part of what I wish to say.
The other use of the word God is as a purely philosophical element. When used in this way, the word God (though somewhat misleading, I admit), sums up the ideas of a universal constant, holism and spiritual substance. To many readers, any article dealing with God in the first sense will sound utterly absurd, while one dealing with God in the second might still be very interesting. It is therefore important that the reader keeps these two different definitions in mind when reading any post on this site, to avoid misunderstandings.
The other use of the word God is as a purely philosophical element. When used in this way, the word God (though somewhat misleading, I admit), sums up the ideas of a universal constant, holism and spiritual substance. To many readers, any article dealing with God in the first sense will sound utterly absurd, while one dealing with God in the second might still be very interesting. It is therefore important that the reader keeps these two different definitions in mind when reading any post on this site, to avoid misunderstandings.
Atheism, presupposition and religous prejudice
I was myself raised an atheist. In some ways this could be a disadvantage, as it makes my relationship with God maybe a bit less natural and relaxed than it would be if I had been raised in a religous tradition. On the other hand, I feel it is also an advantage to me in my philosophical labours, as it enables me to take a fresh look at the nature of the devine, perhaps making me somewhat less prejudiced than I would have otherwise been.
A note on this before I go on. Most atheists see themselves as religiously neutral, but this is in fact a misconception. My country is predominantly atheist, but it is an atheism firmly rooted in a culture and an environment heavily influenced by protestant christianity. That is why "Protestant atheist" would be a more fitting label on my nonbelieving countrymen than simply "atheist". I know many Indian atheists see themselves in this way, as Hindu atheists. It is only because of the tragic war between atheists and christians in the west that our atheists are unable to extend the same generosity.
I think many atheists (including my earlier self) fail to see how much their thinking relies on ideas that were concieved in a religious context. The humanistic morality is firmly based in the teachings of Christ, and could not have existed without them. This makes it somewhat of a contradiction when atheists accuse religion of doing nothing but cause war and trouble. Indeed, the very idea that war is wrong stems from the same phenomenon they are critizing for causing it.
Now, to the point. There are a number of presuppositions behind my philosophy, not the least of which is the existence of God. These presuppositions are based on faith, and would be hard to make a good argument for, though I will try, if challenged. Anyway, apart from these presuppositions, I try to be as logical, analytical and objective as possible. The whole goal of this blog is to present a complete and logically consistent philosophical system based on a few basic assumptions, in keeping with classical philosophical thinking.
The main problem with this is that my own philosophy will also say that such a thing is impossible. Human logic is a limited faculty, and can never claim to completely describe the whole of reality, as I am trying to do on this blog. This is actually scientifically proven by Quantum mechanics. On the smallest level, nature acts in a way that is entirely incomprehensible to our logical mind. It can still be described mathematically though, and mathematics are concieved by human logic, but it seems impossible to base philosphy on mathematics!
So, admitting that what I am attempting to do is impossible, I still attempt to do it. This is because I see no other way of doing it. Even though I can not hope to give a complete description of God and the workings of the universe, I can make a description that is as complete as possible, which is the next best thing. One of my favorite thinkers, the scholar, critic and philosopher Friedrich Schlegel, critized the enlightenment philosophers on these grounds, suggesting that the only way to publish valid philosophy was in the form of fragments - short pieces that all held, and admitted to hold, only a fraction of the truth.
I agree with Schlegel, but why should a fragment be small? This blog is an attempt to create a very large and thorough fragment, which in my opinion would be even better than a small one. I cannot hope to completely unravel the mysteries of the universe, but I can try to completely unravel them as seen from one angle. Together, a host of such angles would come closer to the ultimate goal.
A note on this before I go on. Most atheists see themselves as religiously neutral, but this is in fact a misconception. My country is predominantly atheist, but it is an atheism firmly rooted in a culture and an environment heavily influenced by protestant christianity. That is why "Protestant atheist" would be a more fitting label on my nonbelieving countrymen than simply "atheist". I know many Indian atheists see themselves in this way, as Hindu atheists. It is only because of the tragic war between atheists and christians in the west that our atheists are unable to extend the same generosity.
I think many atheists (including my earlier self) fail to see how much their thinking relies on ideas that were concieved in a religious context. The humanistic morality is firmly based in the teachings of Christ, and could not have existed without them. This makes it somewhat of a contradiction when atheists accuse religion of doing nothing but cause war and trouble. Indeed, the very idea that war is wrong stems from the same phenomenon they are critizing for causing it.
Now, to the point. There are a number of presuppositions behind my philosophy, not the least of which is the existence of God. These presuppositions are based on faith, and would be hard to make a good argument for, though I will try, if challenged. Anyway, apart from these presuppositions, I try to be as logical, analytical and objective as possible. The whole goal of this blog is to present a complete and logically consistent philosophical system based on a few basic assumptions, in keeping with classical philosophical thinking.
The main problem with this is that my own philosophy will also say that such a thing is impossible. Human logic is a limited faculty, and can never claim to completely describe the whole of reality, as I am trying to do on this blog. This is actually scientifically proven by Quantum mechanics. On the smallest level, nature acts in a way that is entirely incomprehensible to our logical mind. It can still be described mathematically though, and mathematics are concieved by human logic, but it seems impossible to base philosphy on mathematics!
So, admitting that what I am attempting to do is impossible, I still attempt to do it. This is because I see no other way of doing it. Even though I can not hope to give a complete description of God and the workings of the universe, I can make a description that is as complete as possible, which is the next best thing. One of my favorite thinkers, the scholar, critic and philosopher Friedrich Schlegel, critized the enlightenment philosophers on these grounds, suggesting that the only way to publish valid philosophy was in the form of fragments - short pieces that all held, and admitted to hold, only a fraction of the truth.
I agree with Schlegel, but why should a fragment be small? This blog is an attempt to create a very large and thorough fragment, which in my opinion would be even better than a small one. I cannot hope to completely unravel the mysteries of the universe, but I can try to completely unravel them as seen from one angle. Together, a host of such angles would come closer to the ultimate goal.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Answer to lost momentum
An answer to the post called "Lost momentum":
I cannot say that beauty lies in deviance from perfection, only that this is the way it seems. Neither me nor anyone else alive has ever witnessed perfection, and so have no basis for comparison. It is my notion of perfection that is flawed - thinking I know what perfect music is like. Beauty lies in deviance from what we see as perfection, which is normally a set of laws for what music, or other forms of art, should be like. These ideas are flawed. Perfection is utterly unknowable.
I cannot say that beauty lies in deviance from perfection, only that this is the way it seems. Neither me nor anyone else alive has ever witnessed perfection, and so have no basis for comparison. It is my notion of perfection that is flawed - thinking I know what perfect music is like. Beauty lies in deviance from what we see as perfection, which is normally a set of laws for what music, or other forms of art, should be like. These ideas are flawed. Perfection is utterly unknowable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
